I don't know whether I can start a poll, but I'm sure Alan will do that once we've got a field of contenders. I'm happy to watch and discuss something I've already seen if we come up with a thought-provoking film.

Any suggestions? I'd say we should stick to something that's Netflixable and-- to avoid well-trod ground-- something that the vast majority of us haven't seen already. And I think we should pick something that's not likely to make a number of members uncomfortable due to content issues (put that Gaspar Noe-recommending hand down, stefbo!)

I'll pick through my queue and come up with a few nominations. I've given no thought-- absolutely none-- to whether we should limit nominations, when to vote, seconding, etc.

Not My Architect. I wasn't as big a fan of that one, wasn't nearly as "architectural" in presentation as it should have been.

Slacker has my vote as well, it has been a while since I have seen it. I have just ordered it from my online rental service, so I guess I will be watching it regardless. Many of us have seen all of Linklater's films anyway, so we would be able to interact with him intelligably as a filmmaker throughout our discussion.

I meant to mention this in my first post, but if any of you happen to buy the Slacker set, be sure to watch Linklater's first feature, which is included as an incredible bonus. In fact, this is the first ever release of It's Impossible to Learn to Plow by Reading Books on any home video format.

Plow is a difficult film, formally speaking. Linklater mentions on his commentary that he was heavily indebted to structuralist filmmakers at the time. Plus, budget constraints meant that he was almost literally a one-man film crew: writer, director, producer, cinematographer, editor, and lead actor.

Having said all that, I'm convinced that if Plow had been made in Tehran or Taipei in the last decade, cinephiles would be lauding it as a masterpiece. It is just brilliant filmmaking. Reminds me most of Tsai Ming-Liang's films. And its style -- long takes, static camera positions, and an almost wordless script -- is such a departure from Slacker. Form is Linklater's gift, I think.

And thus ends my first (of many, if need be) salespitch for Linklater.

I'm fine with this idea, but it seems to me that Russ' idea was to see something most people haven't seen. Much of the enthusiasm for Slacker comes from people who've already seen it, albeit not recently.

I'm tempted to suggest that the film not be a North American release -- not because overseas films are superior, but simply because the chances of most of us not having seen the film will be much greater.

To that end, I'd love to do Fanny and Alexander, which I've been wanting to see for some time now. I just need an excuse.

If we went with something by Linklater, I'm more inclined to go with a less well-known film of his, like Tape or SubUrbia, neither of which I've seen. I'm not sure how easy they are to get ahold of, or if I'd be able to participate, but I'd certainly be more interested in the feedback on those two films than I would be Slacker, which, as a landmark of independent cinema, has been covered every which way.

Still, those who haven't seen Slacker are encouraged to do so, whether or not it makes the cut here. It's a good little movie. Not as good as Dazed and Confused, ya know, but a good little movie...

Slacker has been picked apart as an artifact of a particular zeitgeist (independent film and the grunge/Gen-X era), but what struck me when I watched it recently (and for the first time) is how human and moral the film is, and in ways that I think Christians could genuinely benefit from discussing. The downside of both Tape and Suburbia, though I like both, is that neither were written by Linklater and so they lack something of what I think makes him such an important filmmaker.

I'm totally up for Fanny and Alexander, by the way. I've seen 20 or so Bergman films now but have somehow managed to miss that one. Plus, I've been looking for an excuse to buy the Criterion set.